The diplomacy in Shogun 2 is exceptionally well thought out and implemented. It plays a major part in diplomacy, economically and for the military. More elaborate and detailed than Civ4, yet easier to manage and not as 'religion determines if we can be friends or enemies' as it was in Civ4.
Provinces have different types of specialties, which is like having bonus buildings or wonders in Civ5. Provinces also have variying levels of fertility for their crops (which affects how weathy it is) and may have a harbour or not. Provinces have a single 'castle town' (like a city) each that cannot be destroyed, only change owner (and developed, of course). Every province is already laid out and cannot be changed. But the geopolitical & clan difference makes for very different game experiences depending on what clan one chooses. Shogun 2 of course has the same map, every time. Shogun 2 almost looks like it on its campaign map. Both are a bit like "a really good board game". Shogun 2 has a narrow focus (location, time period, units, objective) while civ5 is more epic. There is the 'drop-in' mode where one can join others' campaigns as the AI during a battle, and vice versa. Many clever ways to have humans replace the AI during battles during campaigns. There is a cooperative multiplayer campaign mode, as well as an adversial one (which is like the normal singleplayer campaign, but with two humans instead of one). Some people play only head to head multiplayer battles, forgoing the campaign mode. What happens on each mode carries into the other seamlessly. They tie into each other in a brilliant way. But rather the opposite, both are of exceedingly high quality. I thought such a combo would cause a loss of focus and quality, with one or both being shoddy. A campaign strategy (like civ5) mode and a battle (Rea Time Strategy) mode. Shogun 2 consists of two 'games' in one in a sense. I don't know why they didn't make the advisors appear (unprompted) to tell different things the player wants to hear about. Often the info of the military advisor is the same thing stated in different words, over and over. The advisors of Civ5 are a nice idea but they are flooded with excessive unwanted information, drowning out the few things that would be of value. They hide mechanics and important information from the player, such as how many turns are left for this deal, and what are the consequences for breaking this deal within this amount of time, etc. Not as intensely as Starcraft 2 though, it is more peaceful.īoth games have problems with transparency. Denouncements and Declarations of Friendship also constantly need to be renewed.ĭuring battles it is a different story, where one micromanages a formation of units. Civ5's constant requirement to renew all types of trade, and to do it manually for each resource, open borders, pacts. Trading is also cleverly done in Shogun 2, with mininal interaction needed from the player. It is instead 'on demand' - you go and recruit units somewhere if you need to. There is no "CHOOSE PRODUCTION" or "UNIT NEEDS ORDERS" popping up every turn. The economy is much more transparent and easy to understand.
Shogun 2 requires only a fraction of the micromanagement of Civ5. Shogun 2 is smooth sailing in comparison. Civ5 is a chaotic mess in late game with many cities and units that cannot be renamed or grouped into armies (no stacking allowed etc).
Shogun 2's ship building, movement and ceued end-of-turn movement actions are all a pain to deal with. Using the interface to find/control air power in Civ5 is a chaotic confusing cumbersome mess.
Shogun 2 has similarities in being very slick and streamlined in gameplay and interface (both games have areas that are lacking badly. I have almost 300 hours of Civ5 and 600 hours of Shogun 2.
0 kommentar(er)
